Musing's musings

Why our children isn't learning good

(Apologies for the atrocious grammar in the post title: It was deliberately done to make the point.)

It is a regrettable truism in textbook publishing that as Texas goes, so goes the nation. With so many schools needing books, the biggest states like Texas and California have a disproportionate influence on what is, and is not, available from textbook publishers. No publisher wants to come out with a book that school districts in mega-states won't buy, so they tend to tailor their materials to what they know they'll be able to market in the biggest markets they have available to them.

This should be a textbook illustration of why unfettered capitalism is not always a good thing. But of course, such an opinion would be highly unlikely to pass muster with the Texas Education Agency, which recently released a draft of its new standards (PDF link) for the teaching of U.S. history since the Reconstruction. The standards were revised with the advice of what the TEA terms expert reviewers, though I would argue that their definition of that term is considerably looser than most historians would probably be comfortable with. Of the six individuals listed, two are professors of history, two are tied to evangelical ministries and have absolutely no academic background in history whatsoever, one is a lawyer whose academic background is not clear, and one is a professor of education with no discernible training in history.

I don't recognize the name of either of the two historians on the panel, but that is not in and of itself significant, since I'm a Europeanist by trade. According to his bio page at Texas State University, Jesus Francisco de la Teja holds a Ph.D. in Latin American history from the University of Texas at Austin. How this qualifies him to address U.S. history is not precisely clear to me. Lybeth Hodges' biography page at Texas Woman's University does not explicitly address either her academic background or her research interests, which is somewhat unusual in academic history. It does seem to me that both of the historians on the panel were chosen primarily for having done all of their academic work in Texas, rather than having the academic background to be able to address questions of American history.

Don't even get me started on having two evangelical Christians empaneled as "expert reviewers." Both David Barton and Peter Marshall appear to have an interest in history, but "having an interest" in a subject is not the same thing as having the necessary background and training to be able to evaluate how it is taught--not to mention the fact that the majority of both men's interest in history appears to involve removing from the teaching of history anything of which they personally disapprove (and they disapprove of quite a bit). If it were not such a serious issue, it would be hugely ironic to see, in Mr. Barton's review of the current standards (PDF link), his disgust that so few American high school graduates can, among other things, find Iraq on a map, name even one Cabinet-level agency in the federal government, or state the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. I agree with Mr. Barton that this lack of what I would consider elementary knowledge is appalling--but I would also argue that it is precisely the inclusion of people like Mr. Barton on review committees that explains why so few of our students come out of high school in possession of such elementary knowledge. They are too busy being force-fed blind patriotism and religious dogma in the guise of education to have the time needed to learn and remember things that are truly important.

It is also ironic to see that the draft standards include (p. 13) an expectation that students will be able to "use standard grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and punctuation" (an expectation which Mr. Barton derided as belonging more to language arts than to social studies or history), when, in one of the comments (A47, on page 5), the reviewers or the staffer who put together their recommendations into final form described Chester Nimitz as the "navel [sic] commander in the Pacific theater." (I should also note that, while the note in question says that Nimitz was added to the list of significant military leaders in World War II, his name does not in fact appear on the list of such leaders that students are expected to know about.) And while I agree that Nimitz played a significant role in WWII as CinCPac (and would argue that he was far more significant a military leader than Douglas MacArthur was), I suspect that his being a Texan might also have an impact on why the TEA wants students to learn about him.

It is not too much to ask, I believe--and particularly in an era when we are trying to get back to the idea that before someone can be certified to teach a particular subject, s/he should have to have received some academic training in it--that anyone asked to review educational standards should have to have the relevant academic background to be able to address whatever standards s/he is being asked to evaluate. If we're talking about the standards for teaching history, then we should be asking historians. If we're talking about mathematics, then it should be mathematicians on the panel--and not megachurch ministers, even if they're very good at counting to large numbers. Parents would rightly be outraged to learn that their children were being taught by people who had no real training in the material they were trying to teach. Why should they be satisfied to have "experts" reviewing the curricular standards that their children's teachers will be forced to follow (and which will likely have a disproportionate impact on the kind of textbooks get published for the next five to ten years) who lack such training?

Wankers

If the events of the past week are any indication, clearly I should have extended my vacation. It was really quite pleasant not to wake up every morning to further grim economic and political news, and to stay in touch with things that really matter--like friends, and nature, and good food. Unfortunately, as is always the case, time away ends and we have to come, willy-nilly, back to what we are pleased to designate the "real" world.

It seems that one of the things that happened while I was gone was a brouhaha between PZ Myers and William Donohue and his so-called Catholic League. (No, I am absolutely not linking to either one of them: I categorically refuse to drive any more traffic to either place. Use teh Google if you want to get more details.) The brouhaha actually spilled over into last week, and since I've been commenting on it all over Left Blogistan, I figured I might as well write about it here where at least I can keep track of all the comments a little easier.

To reduce a great deal of sound and fury that might have signified little or nothing had not two ginormous egos gotten involved into something a little less cumbersome, here's a quick summary of the events as I understand them. A college student in Florida (who may or may not be Catholic; I haven't seen any clarification on that point) went to Mass and took Communion. But instead of consuming the Eucharist, he held on to it to show a friend (or so he says). This action upset a few people at the parish in question, and apparently there was some remonstration with the young man, who did, eventually, give back the host in question. Had it stayed there, no one not involved in the parish in question would likely ever have heard about it.

It did not, however, stay there. Bill DonoWho, blowhard and media-hog extraordinaire, got involved. I don't know how he found out about the incident, but he did, and he and some of his minions began calling for disciplinary action against the student in question. It is at least alleged that some of the people from DonoWho's group made death threats against the student--he has gone on record as saying that he felt his life was in danger. DonoWho himself merely called for the student to be disciplined, and hoped that expulsion would be on the table as one of the possible penalties.

That this reaction on the part of DonoWho and his minions is over-the-top is self-evident. But here, too, this mess might have stopped--had the other supersized ego not gotten involved: to wit, PZ Myers. PZ, for those of you who are not familiar with him, is a biology professor at a small state institution in Minnesota. He is also an avowed atheist. I want to make it very clear before continuing that I have absolutely not the slightest problem with PZ's atheism. I could wish, however, that PZ could manage to find a similar level of toleration for my Catholicism, as further details will more than amply demonstrate.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot

An administrator at the University of Toledo has been fired after writing a column for the Toledo Free Press in which she criticized gay-rights activists in a column last month. After the column appeared April 18, Crystal Dixon, the university's associate vice president for human resources, was placed on paid administrative leave. She has since received verbal notice from the university that she has been fired. According to Andy at Towleroad, Dixon plans to sue the university.

The controversy appears to center around the following passage from Dixon's column last month:

As a Black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are civil rights victims. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. Daily thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle.

Predictably, the Christianists and the neocons are trying to paint this as an instance of liberal suppression of conservative free speech and infringement on First Amendment rights. I'm not buying it--about which more in a moment. For now, I'm going to take issue with Dixon's basic premise. If, as she avers (without producing a shred of evidence in support of the claim, naturally), "thousands of homosexuals" make a decision to stop being gay every day, whereas she can't just wake up some morning and decide not to be black, I'd like to ask Ms. Dixon how she can be so sure she isn't going to wake up some morning and decide to be a lesbian. I'd also love to ask her exactly when it was she "decided" she would be heterosexual.

Of course her premise is bogus--as anyone familiar with the literature on the genesis of homosexuality (to say nothing of the validity--or the success rates--of so-called "ex-gay" programs) should have been able to tell her. Whatever the ultimate cause of sexual orientation may be (and we really don't have a very good idea about it), it is universally acknowledged, by all except Christianists and other deluded folk, that a person's sexual orientation is more or less immutably fixed well before the age of five years. That hypothesis, I should point out, was first advanced by Sigmund Freud well over a century ago.

Now, let's talk about her firing. To claim that this is an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech is simply ludicrous. She was perfectly free to publish the opinion piece--but, as she of all people ought to know, actions have consequences. And her actions were irresponsible at best. When you are in charge of hiring and firing, you have to be extremely circumspect in what you say in public--especially when what you say makes it appear that you cannot be objective in certain situations. And given that the university's equal opportunity policy (PDF link) states, in pertinent part, that "...the university is committed to providing employment and educational opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, veteran status, the presence of a disability, familial status, political affiliation and participation in protected activities," Dixon had to have known (or should have) that she was on thin ice by appearing to call that policy into question--or at least casting doubt on her ability as one of the responsible university officials to administer it in an equitable fashion.

Dixon's indiscretion might have been pardonable if she were just a faculty member or a lower-level staffer. But when you rise to the level of the senior administration--as I have had plenty of opportunities to observe over the last decade, as my work has brought me into regular contact with people in analogous positions at my university--you really have to be very careful about what you say, to whom you say it, and in what contexts you say it. Dixon, apparently, forgot all of that very basic information--and is consequently out of a job. Her losing her job has, I imagine, very little to do with the fact that she thinks gay people are icky and shouldn't have the same rights and freedoms that she insists on as a black woman. She's got every right in the world to think that: and, as a private citizen at least, every right to publish her thoughts on the subject in any venue that will accept them.

But the important fact to keep in mind is that Ms. Dixon was not just a private citizen when she wrote that column last month. She was a very senior administrator, whose job responsibilities included seeing to it that the university lived up to and enforced all of its policies--including the one that says it will not, as a matter of principle, discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation in hiring or academic matters. By publishing her derogatory remarks about gay rights and gay-rights activists, Dixon made it abundantly clear that she disagreed with the university in regard to that policy and, therefore, could no longer be trusted to act as a spokesperson for the university or, as an administrator, to uphold the policies of the institution in an even-handed manner. And if she can't be trusted to carry out either of those two functions, then there was really no reason to keep paying her a salary. The university might have chosen, if she had the appropriate academic credentials, to allow Dixon to step down from her administrative position and accept a teaching job in whatever department she held tenure. On the other hand, by standing up for the institution and its policies and refusing to allow Ms. Dixon to sow any further dissent on campus, her superiors were simply doing what she herself forgot to do--looking out for the university's best interests. If she's smart, she'll drop the lawsuit, as I seriously doubt it will go well for her.

This isn't how it's supposed to work

Something else I spotted in that issue of Science the other day perked me up a little. It was a news item about a graduate student in the NIU Geology Department who was wounded in the shootings on February 14. Despite having been shot five times, Brian Karpes, 27, not only survived, but managed to get his poster presentation completed in time for last month's Lunar and Planetary Science conference in Texas. Regrettably, Karpes's injuries prevented him from going to the conference and presenting his poster in person, but an NIU professor made sure it got to the conference. And, as Nature reported on its blog, dozens of colleagues stopped by to sign the poster and express well-wishes to Karpes. A note tacked to the middle of the poster quipped, with understandable pride, "He gets shot FIVE times and he still turns in his homework!!"

Not bad for a graduate student, getting noticed in the two most prestigious journals in science. What a pity that it wasn't solely on the basis of his results--but still, it's a great story and one of many little rays of light and hope that have begun to shine from the darkness surrounding our brush with tragedy earlier this year.

C'est fini!

Another semester under my belt!

We had our final "meeting" for my reading seminar on women and gender in eastern Europe tonight--essentially, the class part consisted of five graduate students handing in their papers to the instructor, after which she and her spouse made us comfortable, made us dinner, and regaled us with stories. I turned in my analytical paper for my other class last week (before I caught the cold, fortunately), so I am officially done for the semester. Still have an incomplete hanging over my head from last term, but I hope to be able to knock that off by the time the summer ends, and I'll be free and clear for the start of classes again in August.

And of course, now that all the endless grind of reading and writing is done, it's time for a whirlwind two days' worth of housecleaning, last-minute shopping, laundry, and packing. The limo driver will be here to take me to the airport at 8 a.m. Sunday morning, and thus far all I've got packed are essentially my research supplies--notepads, pencils, notes from last trip, all my official letters of permission, passport, reader's cards, that sort of thing. But I think for the rest of tonight I'm going to go plop down in the recliner, pour myself a finger's worth or two of Black Bush, catch up on a little TV, and relax for the first time in what seems like eight months.

Life is good...for right now

After quite a busy start to my new job, and a stressful week, I managed to get myself to the airport yesterday and on my plane to Minneapolis. We took off on time (first time that's happened to me, flying with American Airlines) and landed early, with hardly any bobbles.

Nevertheless, the flight was anything but comfortable. A full plane (11 people on standby when we left) meant they only had center seats remaining when I got to the ticket counter to get my boarding pass. I spent the better part of two hours wedged between an Oriental guy who could play linebacker for some professional football teams (or at least college), who needed all of his seat and about half of mine, it seemed, and a fidgety sales rep for Mitsubishi, who also seemed to want some of my space.

Got to the hotel, though, checked in, managed to finish up my reading in time to get my reading analysis e-mailed to my professor for last night's class. And then I splurged and bought myself a birthday present--in the form of a ticket to last night's game between the Minnesota Wild and the Los Angeles Kings.

Oh, bloody hell. Here we go again

Via Shakespeare's Sister, I learn that apparently another batch of education professors needs tenure and/or promotion. That's the only plausible excuse I can think of for why anyone would ever suggest retooling the way English is spelt:

WASHINGTON - When “say,” “they” and “weigh” rhyme, but “bomb,” “comb” and “tomb” don’t, wuudn’t it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?

Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

I'm with the opponents. The last time something like this was attempted, my sister was just starting school. Some loon thought it would be a good idea to teach her and her classmates to spell English phonetically, using the Initial Teaching Alphabet for the first two or three years of school. After that, they were somehow magically supposed (apparently) to transition to the proper (and admittedly less-than-strictly logical) English spelling rules. End result? My sister and most of her classmates are lousy spellers to this day.

Here's what the academic drag looks like

...When it's not hanging on the back of my office door:

Got the graduation pictures last night, so thought I'd share this one. The distinguished-looking gentleman with his back to the camera is the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences who, at the moment this picture was snapped, had just remarked to me "What, you again?"

To which I responded, "Yeah. And I'm coming back again in another five or six years, so get ready!"

Neener, neener, neener!

Can I just say that I love my alma mater? Twenty years ago when I graduated, we were sent on our way by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), who later ran for president. Last year, graduates heard a barn-burner from Illinois' junior senator, Barack Obama.

This year? Stephen Colbert. And if President Taylor's prediction at the end of the linked story comes true, I am definitely trying to wangle a ticket to next year's commencement exercises:

Old Main still graces Knox's campus, and it's the only still-standing site of a Lincoln-Douglas debate. That's not a bad backdrop for any commencement speaker -- including the one Taylor hopes to, and probably will, land for next year.

"I've invited," Taylor reveals, "William Jefferson Clinton."

I'm NEVER going to get the wrinkles out in time!

Picked up my regalia this morning for graduation this Saturday. If I do say so myself, that's a pretty snappy looking hood. I think I like this color combination the best of the three I'm entitled to wear. I'm not thrilled about having to report at 8:15 a.m. for a 9 a.m. ceremony on a Saturday, but it seems like there are going to be tons of people I know at the ceremony, so I'm rather glad I decided to walk after all.